Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday April 09, 2012 @09:35AM
from the open-up-your-pdf-and-sing dept.

theodp writes "More and more, reports the Chicago Tribune, churches are embracing the use of tablets and smartphones during services. At Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, the Rev. Otis Moss III preaches from his iPad. 'There was a time in the church when the Gutenberg Bible was introduced,' notes early adopter Moss. 'There was a severe concern among ministers who were afraid the printed page would be such a distraction if you put it in the hands of people in worship.' Tech-savvy churchgoers are also on board. 'In the service, when they say to pull out Bibles, I pull that phone out,' Ted Allen Miller said of using his Android smartphone at Willow Creek Community Church."

Just like anything else, it's different so some people will find it weird or wrong in the beginning. Or assume you are looking at porn in service or some equally ridiculous claim. And the only reason this is even a story is because it involves churches which are often steeped in tradition and not generally the first to use tech, although that's really a church by church decision.

I'd say region by region, rather than it being driven by denomination. I was going to a church in Los Altos (not far from Google Headquarters) in 2008, and smartphones were the medium of choice for following along in the scriptures. First iPhones and later the G1 when it debuted...

Fast forward two years, and I moved to Fremont, about 15 miles counterclockwise around the bay. In church there, one day, I pulled out my HTC phone and and was met with questioning stares. I raised a question about a scriptu

It's also pretty old news. Preachers have been broadcasting sermons and hymns on TV for decades, on radio before that. What church doesn't list a phone number?

Is there still a church that lacks an internet presence? Even the tiny, poor church I attended (in the poorest neighborhood in town) over five years ago had the computerized large screen. The one I attend now is very large, rich, high-tech church, with two giant screens, professional stage lighting, electric musical instruments, all computerized. Flat screens all over the concourse.

You're right, churches (except perhaps the Amish) have embraced technology before I was born, and that was a LONG time ago.

2) Using 21st century technology (iPad) to study the Bible is just as strange and unusual as using 15th century technology (printed books) to study a set of documents written between 1200 BCE and 100 CE.

1200 BCE? Let's see... late bronze age religious documents... you must be talking about the vedic texts known from what we call "Hinduism." The religious texts of the Jews and Christians didn't begin to appear until much later.

even to the point of denying the science that makes the 21st century technology possible.

Where do you people come up with this bullshit? Do you have a link to any of these? I know of no religion that denies science. Hell, even the Pope recognises and acknowledges that evolution is real.

You discredit the ancients, does that include Plato and Aristotle? Why do young people think that today's humans are any smarter than people three thousand years ago? We're not smarter, we just know more. Fruit flies evolve q

Since you asked, the evidence that an iPad works is directly observable, while evolution requires-- if you'll excuse the layman's term-- "faith" in experts, as the cause and effect are not directly observable. Thanks for not taking it to an absurd level like some, who claim that creationist don't believe in gravity and the like.

It's easy enough to make and investigate a simple simulation of the way evolution works, without being an expert. This would confirm the huge mathematical advantage that the evolutionary process has over the much bruted operation of random chance. And the evidence of an iPad in operation says nothing about the way in which it operates. For all the mass of Creationists are aware, it may be that iPad-shaped stones are carried into the Temple of The Lord, blessed with the relevant incantations, and then sold o

No, I think the point of the above poster was that one of the two can undergo in situ testing whereas the other can merely investigate current observable state and effect to theorize about initial cause. By a strict definition of science (the experimental testing of a hypothesis), you can accept the iPad on a scientific basis, but can not accept cosmology/evolution on a scientific basis until we are advanced enough to either create our own universes to observe, or may set up a megayear experiment with obse

Nothing contrived here. No general lumping of other tools like mathematics, engineering, logic, various analytical techniques (e.g. PCR, peptide mapping, carbon dating, etc...), into the parent term of science either.

Am I foolish for attempting to clarify another persons point on slashdot? (quite likely) Or was it for attempting to objectively looking at something from an alternate position?

You link appears to fail to address the point I mentioned regarding application of the scientific method in a controlled experiment however. There's plenty of observational data from within our own system (such as the newt story with regional differences in coevolved toxin/resistance to TTX), but I didn't see any controlled experi

Creationists should eat their own dog food and live like in the Middle Ages.

umm, you are aware of their various social and educational policies, right?

The interesting part is they always want everyone ELSE to live according to their policies, but they themselves should be free to (fill in the blank with decades of corrupt televangelists, corrupt priests, etc)

Eugenics is an example of the negative outworking of extreme evolutionary thought.

Would disagree, eugenic programs seem to be pretty strongly selected against by evolutionary pressures.

Inductive thought experiment: Assume a eugenics program is implemented where only the top 10% procreate for everyone as step x=zero. x=x+1 step is 90% of genes are not passed along to next generation. Conclusion, 90% are evolutionarily / genetically intensely motivated to wipe out the eugenics project so they get to reproduce... It would seem any program preventing reproduction by "more than a destabil

"Survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with being 'superior'. It refers to the current incarnation being most likely to reproduce, per reading of Darwin's writings.You find a species of bird in a forest which mates and nests only in knotholes in trees. The largest, most aggressive birds get all the large knotholes and the females prefer those nests and mate with them. A lumber company comes into the area and cuts down all the old growth, leaving only smaller trees with smaller knotholes. The smaller ma

There is disagreement among scientists across a broad range of questions. Since one of these groups is by definition not accepting "correct science", should they be required to deny all scientific principles, too?

Few "creationists", though, deny the scientific statement "evolution occurs" as a causal statement affecting biology. They tend to deny the untestable, unscientific hypothesis "only evolution occurs". If you're among those who deny correct science through accepting that hopeful non-sequitur equi

If it were that simple, the whole thing would have blown over. No scientist has ever said "only evolution occurs"; they've all said that evolution is the only thing that has ever been observed occurring, and there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs.

And it's when crackpots say that their ignorance is the evidence (!) which leads them to suspect (or worse: know for sure) that the F

"Scientists" per se, tend to avoid that form of statement, yes. Dawkins et al, however, have made a very comfortable living stating exactly that. Any presentation of "religion versus science" in only possible insofar as one is using "evolution" in an untestable, hence unscientific sense.

In general, though, the statement that "there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs" is directly factually false. We -know- design occurs, if for no other reason than biology exist

In general, though, the statement that "there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs" is directly factually false. We -know- design occurs, if for no other reason than biology exists that we ourselves have designed. We are arguing about the possible scope of "when" design is a factor, not "if". That it -is- a factor when talking about "existence in general", is now established fact.

Please provide some of this evidence that "design occurs." Everything I have read about "design theory" boils down to various restatements of the argument from personal incredulity. I have yet to see any testable evidence, or even testable hypothesis, that design occurs.

Nice try. Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book. Are you REALLY trying to equate that with controversy among scientist??? According to you, creationists do not defend that "evolution does not exist". They just defend that "not only evolution exists". Even if it was true, what is the other thing that "exists"? Do you have any scientific argument to present here or you feel happy just by trolling?

Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book.

Really? Have you actually ever heard one say this, or is this just the Straw Man that came most quickly to mind?

Are you REALLY trying to equate that with controversy among scientist???

There is controversy among scientists. When you deny this, reality will remain precisely the same, that there is controversy among scientists. Apart from those in the ID camp, there are notions of, say, "panspermia" as a ca

...is that as more technology becomes available, the true believers seem MORE certain of their faith. I'm not sure if that is a result of the technology or just a shift in the way religions operate, but it seems like questioning your faith used to be considered a good thing and is now very much a bad thing.

My guess is this has to do with politicizing of faith. When you have a pastor telling a 15 year old girl that she can't be a Democrat and good Christian at the same time, then you've got an earthly power structure that depends on faith for stability and anything that undermines the faith is a threat.

Indeed. You have asshats like the Florida guy (with his clean-shaven face and necktie, Satan's leash and symbol of wealth and power) directly contradicting Jesus' teachings by disrupting funerals with "god hates fags" signs... he's going straight to hell. God doesn't hate anyone, but he does hate things you do no matter who you are. That hypocrite that scrapes a secondary sexual characteristic off his face should look at where the bible says not to make your self look like a woman. He's worse than any gay I

...is that as more technology becomes available, the true believers seem MORE certain of their faith.

What may be happening is that as communication tools improve those true believers have the ability to communicate more freely so the rest of us see more of their communications.

If you look at all the neo-nazi groups, pedos, and scammers on the internet you might get the impression there are more of them then there were a few years ago. The truth is they can just communicate better now.

...is that as more technology becomes available, the true believers seem MORE certain of their faith. I'm not sure if that is a result of the technology or just a shift in the way religions operate, but it seems like questioning your faith used to be considered a good thing and is now very much a bad thing.

One possible explanation, in a quote from Andre Malraux (with my emphasis):

The great mystery is not that we should have been thrown down here at random between the profusion of matter and that of the stars; it is that from our very prison we should draw, from our own selves, images powerful enough to deny our own nothingness.

Chasing "the American dream", a even a middle class (much faster for a redneck or whitetrash) individual doesn't take much to realize that s/he's nothing and have very little control over what governs their life... what choice does such a person have? Science is not accessible to her/him and science doesn't promise a better life (not in terms of gizmos, but in terms of denying their nothingness)... where can that person find salvati

I know this article will generate legions of flamewars and hostility. However, i would like to mention that belief in a God is not mutually exclusive with belief in science. Many religious worshipers don't think the world was literally created in 6 days, nor is 6000 years old, nor discard evolution.

Even the extremely conservative Roman Catholic Church officially recognises evolution. Here in Europe most people never heard about the Creationism stupidity in their lives. Only in the USA and a few Muslim countries you can find batshit religious fanatics trying to push that shit around, and being taken seriously.

Actually, although there are some European countries that are similar (Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia are better, Turkey is worse), the US is way down there, at least with regards to France, Germany, the UK, etc. source [wikipedia.org]

At least creationism is one thing fundamentalist Muslims and Christians agree on...

Yes, but that was only to modify the religion to accommodate the recent findings of science. I mean, it's not like allegorical reading was being advocated by Christians in like, the -third century- or anything...

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control

How so? You can believe that science is entirely correct without believing that it MUST be able to explain everything. Having faith that science can explain everything is not scientific in and of itself. That's philosophical. It may well be that it is only capable of explaining a subset of things in the universe, i.e. that it can explain the natural, but not the supernatural.

The whole Jesus = Zombie bit is an example of profoundly immoral argument. Name anything you believe in, absolutely anything, and somebody can oversimplify and reduce it to an absurdity or a profound insult. Marxist? Then you believe the state will wither away by getting larger so you're obviously an idiot! Capitalist? Then you worship a giant invisible hand that requires occasional human sacrefices - what a maroon! Pick a side, and then describe a strawman version of the other side and declare yourself win

The whole Jesus = Zombie bit is an example of profoundly immoral argument. Name anything you believe in, absolutely anything, and somebody can oversimplify and reduce it to an absurdity or a profound insult. Marxist? Then you believe the state will wither away by getting larger so you're obviously an idiot! Capitalist? Then you worship a giant invisible hand that requires occasional human sacrefices - what a maroon! Pick a side, and then describe a strawman version of the other side and declare yourself winner, that's all you're doing.

Point taken. The difference is that interpreting economics from a Marxist or capitalist viewpoint does not require ignoring well-established physical laws.

Maybe we're all just really high tech, but my pastor has been using his laptop in services for ten or fifteen years. Rather than carrying a Bible and notepad, many of us in the congregation have been using laptops with Bible software for following along and note taking. One of the first things my wife did when she won an iPad was to get a Bible program and set up her note-taking system with it. Somehow I'm able to avoid the urge to check my email; I think in part because I have a close network of friends who won't hesitate to call me out if I'm goofing off.

Carrying a digital Bible has many advantages; quickly changing to another reference, access to different versions, cross referencing and Strongs lookups...I'd have trouble going back to paper.

The church has historically been an early adopter of mass communication technologies, the best example being the publication of the Gutenberg Bible [wikipedia.org] which marked the start of the mass-produced book printing revolution. One Bible mobile app that I think is really notable is the YouVersion app (youversion.com): multiple translations, reading plans, bookmarks, notes, social networking; it has it all. An excellent example of a learning tool.

An interesting observation. But it was not the established Church that adopted the Gutenberg Bible -- printing and reading the Bible in the local language was actually heavily resisted and forbidden by the established Church of the time.

Rather, communication technology like the Gutenberg Bible played a central role in the reformation of the Church. It allowed those dissatisfied with the established church to learn and organize for themselves, and establish a new church, the Protestant movement, that was m

OK so you have no experience or evidence but felt like posting anyway. (I married into a churchgoing family... guess where I spent last sunday morning? None of them are believers (just social/traditional) so we all get along better than might be expected...)

this strikes me as a bad idea... a big part of going to a church service in person has to be human interactions

LOL if anything its the other way around, during services.

Non-services related activities, yeah, thats nothing but kids goofing off as kids do, and parents playing "holier than thou".

I would agree. I work with some technical aspects of my church and while I want to add some accessibility enhancements, I don't want to detract from the service. You don't want to turn people's focus from the speaker to a device. That said, it would be nice to have features for those with disabilities, be able to share notes, and maybe eventually be able to get a transcript that you can review later (helps reinforce things, especially if you have some hearing/vision/language impairment).

this strikes me as a bad idea... a big part of going to a church service in person has to be human interactions and I'd think all the tablets would get in the way.

There are really two parts to most modern church services:

"corporate worship" time, which includes singing, greeting, group prayer, etc. This is really based on the idea that human interaction really encourages, grows, and solidifies your faith.

"teaching/preaching" time, which is the sermon. This was originally based on the idea that you'd have someone more studied in scripture/theology who could teach you spiritual truths (or teach applications of those truths) in a way that the lay person might not be abl

Churches could create an app that displays the relevant verses/other information at a given time so you don't have to search for them. It could be implemented either by using a wifi network or a predetermined schedule.

LifeChurch actually wrote one of the most popular Bible apps out there. My pastor at my church has started telling people to pull out their phones and tabletts for about a year now. I went with a friend to a very traditional church at one time, and the pastor there, in his 70s, was preaching from his phone. It's still the Bible, no matter what form it takes. The electronic form makes it easier to make notes, cross reference, post to Facebook and Twitter, look up stuff online, and easier to carry. I actually find myself reading it more as I can easily carry it with me in my phone. It is probably the greatest advancement to the Bible since the Guttenberg press, with the NIV and other translations being the second greatest advancement (which you can also get in the Bible apps)

One of the popular Bible apps on the IOS appstore is made by a friend of mine. He's Southern Baptist.

The first mobile Bible App I ever used was the "Pocket e-Sword" [e-sword.net] developed for PocketPC in 2000. I used it in a very conservative Baptist church back in about 2001, and no one thought it was strange. That was 11 year ago.

I realize it's the usual/. religion bashing, but tablets of course lend themselves wonderfully to this application - needing something to perform a few simple functions like looking up scripture references and note taking - at a level even the elderly can handle and do this via mobile. They can also entertain otherwise noisy and unruly children.

I've seen far more objection in the corporate academic settings. At the company I used to work for, some would mandate that everyone close their laptop during a mee

I've been living in relatively small towns (pop. 50,000 and 20,000) for the past fifteen years, attending convservative evangelical churches. Two of them make extensive use of multimedia presentations, which I have to admit was a bit of an annoyance to me -- I stop seeing the worship as a sincere expression of faith from the heart but instead it starts looking as you said, iike a Vegas performance.

I have tried using my Kindle when we're told to pull up a specific chapter, but the interface is so tedious I'm just getting to the passage by the time the preacher finishes reading it. Much faster than to grab a dog-eared print copy and flip to the right section. My wife likes using her smartphone, though, and I've even seen smartphones among folks I wouldn't have expected. This particular congregation is largely older ranchers.

You mean "tech" as in printing and publishing? That's been a problem for years. And it makes me wonder if these things will be stymied by a shot from Big Theological Print Houses. They're obviously worried about the copyrights on the material they publish, and ensuring their revenue streams remain flowing.

Years ago, I was surprised to see advances in steganographic watermarking taking place in printed music. The spacing of notes and symbols, using dotted lines instead of thin solid lines for bars, all t

Err, the vast majority of a given population back then couldn't read, so on what rational basis would that concern be placed

The ministers were afraid people would become curious with all those pretty printed symbols and tried to learn how to read them. Then they'd lose their minister jobs. Ignorance and superstition are close friends.

The primary concern the clergy had with the laity having Bible's in their own language was that they might actually read it and compare what it said to what was being taught from the pulpit. Christianity has had almost 2000 years of significant forks - its history is rife with individuals trying to make their church more popular by blending in local non christian concepts, softening the tone of unpopular language, and removing or changing phrases that might offend. My favorite data point - God's name appears almost 7000 times in the original texts, yet most modern translations have dropped that to between three and zero! Why? Because 'its tradition not to use it', and 'it might confuse people who should believe that Jesus is God', which is hard to make people accept if the Bible is left in its original state as referring to Jesus as the Son of an Almighty God with a different name that most Christians have been told they should not even pronounce.

The power of the clergy came from them telling the people that the Bible was best left in Latin, they should believe what they were told, and follow what the King said. Their telling people to obey the King kept their comfortable relationship with the ruling classes. For a long time anyone in possession of a Bible in English would be executed, most often because they quickly realized the Trinity was a false teaching. For example, the last person officially burnt alive for this in England was a medical student in 1612.

Fun quote: "Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their havingany translation of these books." - The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

Just to start, the "Vulgate" (Latin translation of the Bible) is so called because Latin was the ordinary language of educated people. The Bible wasn't left in Latin; the texts that have come down to us are in Hebrew, Greek, Coptic and a few others. And the first translation at the behest of an English King was into English (the King James version.)

Your comment about modern translations is also confused. The Jews have a taboo on the pronunciation of the Name in Hebrew. This is why Jews may cheerfully say "God forbid" or "from your mouth to God's ears" - the word "God" in English isn't forbidden. (and I wouldn't directly print even a transliteration of the name on Slashdot, despite being an agnostic.) The nonexistent word "Jehovah" arises precisely because pointed versions of Torah used to point the name with the vowels of Adonai to remind the reader to substitute Adonai instead, and insufficiently educated Christians thought that it was a real word.

The real problem with the laity reading the Bible without sufficient education turned out to be entirely justified. The fear was that, through lack of scholarship, they wouldn't understand what they were reading, and would start up deviant sects. The existence of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, which began in exactly such a way, makes the point. The really weird thing to my mind is the fundamentalist Evangelicals who combine the non-Biblical overemphasis on Jesus to which you (in my view correctly) allude, with a ridiculous misunderstanding of the way to understand Genesis.

Irrespective of how you might choose to translate the Hebrew word, pronounced without the missing sounds as "Yad-Hey-Vad-He", it is a personal name. Words like Adonai are titles, translated in English as "God", "Lord", which leads to to ridiculous translations like "the Lord my Lord said untoeth my Lord". Why should Christians maintain a Jewish superstition? (Didn't Jesus say he made God's name manifest? Did he say Lord? Didn't he teach his followers to pray for the sanctification of his Father's name? What name was that?) I've always found it amusing and sad that the 'author' of the Bible has had his name removed and replaced by titles, and this continues to be justified by people who claim to follow Jesus teachings.

I've also found it interesting how many smart people who studied the Bible came to the conclusion that the Trinity was a pagan teaching unsupported by scripture, Issac Newton being one of my favorite examples.

I first approached the Bible as an agnostic leaning towards atheism, read with an open mind, and a goal of proving my parents wrong. At the time my idea of light reading was books on particle physics and molecular and evolutionary biology, I came away with two strong opinions - 1) the Bible was a much more interesting book than its critics gave it credit for, especially in the few places it touched on science and the many places where it touched on archaeological history, and 2) what most people who call themselves Christians believe has very little to do with the book they claim to base their beliefs on - modern churches and teachings are nothing like first century Christians. Studying the bits of of history of Christianity that survived the many purges and burnings explains very well why this is the case.

But not all, and I think you're making my point. Many people nowadays regard religions, almost per se, as a kind of wishful nonsense or fairy tales (though the original fairy tales were pretty serious). But when you ask "Why should Christians maintain a Jewish superstition" you betray your lack of joined up knowledge. Jesus, as far as we can gather, was in almost all ways an orthodox Jew, squarely in the prophetic tradition. The origins of Christianity have to be considered in that context.

The really weird thing to my mind is the fundamentalist Evangelicals who combine the non-Biblical overemphasis on Jesus

Jesus is central to Christianity. Christ IS Christianity. The old covenant with the Jews was obey every law, or spend eternity in hell. The new covenant is that your sins are forgiven; they were paid in blood by an innocent man, the son of God, who God sent to die so we may live.

As to the trinity, I never understood that myself until I was baptised a couple of years ago. I understood the father and son but not the holy ghost -- until I was filled with the holy ghost.

I'll bet some of those here who follow my journals have noticed the change in me the last couple of years without even ever having met me in the flesh. I've always been a Christian, so I didn't imagine how much being baptized would change me.

Can you cite some specific examples where God's name was redacted to emphasize Jesus' deity? There are no "original texts"; there are only oldest possible copies. Whenever I'm puzzled by popular interpretation of a difficult passage, I pull up a side-by-side [bible.org] comparison [scripture4all.org] of the oldest source material and English translation. I don't read more than three words of Greek or Hebrew, but those two sites helpfully provide word-for-word literal translations (e.g., "Thus for loves the God the system as besides the

I don't know about to emphasize Jesus' divinity, but every time you see LORD in small-caps in your Bible, it's replacing the tetragrammaton, which is used as a placeholder for the name of God, due to the Jews attempting to remove any possibility of violating the third commandment.

Now that purely secular authorities are in charge, I'm sure we'd never see them enhance their power through the ignorance of the populace! 2,000+ page bills, anyone? "We need to pass the health care law so that you can see what is in it."

The ministers were afraid people would become curious with all those pretty printed symbols and tried to learn how to read them. Then they'd lose their minister jobs. Ignorance and superstition are close friends.

Once again, the old "educate them and they'll lose faith" saw.

Except... it's not true, and never has been [newgeography.com]. The spread of literacy and Christianity went hand-in-hand in the West. You're more likely to be deeply faithful if you can read your own scriptures, not less. And especially in the case of Americans that are religious, they tend to be especially more so the higher their level of education [sciencedaily.com]:

"

Many in the pundit class identify religion as something of a regressive tendency, embraced by the less enlightened, the less skilled, intelligent and educated...Some might be surprised to learn that religious affiliation grows with education levels. A new University of Nebraska study finds that with each additional year of education, the odds of attending religious services increased by 15%. The educated, the study found, may not be eschewing religion, as social science has long maintained, even if their spiritual views tend to be less narrow, and less overtly tied to politics, than among the less schooled.

I've noted here in past posts that the 9/11 hijackers were all educated, and that the London bombers were British-born, with a lifetime of Western liberal educations and economic and political opportunity. Their immigrant parents were poor and uneducated when they came to the UK, and were much more moderate. And yet their Westernized, educated children chose Jihad.

Wait, which religion has a zombie god? That sounds awesome! I might convert from Celestia worship for that.

I know you say that to get a rise of out Christians, but if you're going to do so, at least remember that Zombies are mindless. Maybe "undead" would be a little more accurate for your purposes. After all, the Bible said that Christ told the witnesses "Be not afraid", not "Braaaiiiinnnnss!".

The primary point of Resurrection (7th level, Cl) is to restore complete vitality and life to a subject. You may be confusing it with the spell Raise Dead (3rd level, Cl), which is a spell that creates the undead you refer to. Both are considered necromantic, so it's understandable that a novice might get them mixed up.

Given, however, that Jesus wounds were still visible after his resuscitation, the conditions are probably more in line with Raise Dead (5th level, Cl), which restores life, but does not a

I go to church and do not believe in God. One of our two main ministers is a Buddhist. The other is Christian (of a near-Catholic variety). We publish the sermons weekly as an audio stream, are working on video, and have considered live streaming and tablet-formatted newsletters.

Attending a church, using a given technology, holding a particular belief, and being a member of a website are all independent events, with their own independent causative situations.

1 sort out your lighting during the install of the cameras2 make sure that your outbound bandwidth can handle the stress of streaming3 expand your sound "station" to hold all the "stuff" so that folks doing the various bits can coordinate4 make sure whoever is first to speak during a service knows that Waiting For The Divine To Inspire only goes as far as when your service starts. (we actually have a projector with a timer in the corner as a Hint tha

1) A lighting "redesign" (adding 3 Source Four's from the back of the sanctuary to soften shadows) is in progress, and I'm in charge of that. We're likely only going to have one camera.

2) It can't, but can be upgraded to do so.

3) Only stuff I expect to need is a tiny Linux box. Seriously considering a Raspberry Pi with a web-based remote admin interface, because it screams "don't touch". Will likely end up with something small enough to fit in a spare slot in our audio rack.

"3) Only stuff I expect to need is a tiny Linux box. Seriously considering a Raspberry Pi with a web-based remote admin interface, because it screams "don't touch". Will likely end up with something small enough to fit in a spare slot in our audio rack."

i would say that unless you have a fairly small sanctuary you will need at least 2 cameras and you will most likely need a medium to large box to run things (we use a Mac Pro) if you are worried about folks futzing with the equipment then setup things so tha

I would assume it was a Unitarian Universalist (UU), which is what I am. I remember going to Sunday School, learning about Noah’s arch, playing the evolution game, practicing medication, being taught how the brain works (The instructor brought in real human brain in formaldehyde – we were 9).

Theology and Science are two very important methods of thoughts – designed to asked different questions - Why are we hear and how things work.

What's the difference between "God created the universe" vs "big bang created the universe"? Did you know the big bang/expansion hypothesis was from Georges Lematre, a Belgian preist -- "The Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation", as he described it.

What's the difference between "God created the universe" vs "big bang created the universe"?

One is testable and the other isn't -- obviously, we can't create another Big Bang, but we can test that, "If the Big Bang happened, the background radiation should look like X and the galaxies should act like Y, and there should be Z amounts of certain elements, etc.".

Not to mention that "God created the universe" is pretty vague. How? Which God? What can we learn from it?

It is funny how Angry Atheists and Conservative Christians. Take a such a simplistic view of the Bible, and usually cannot get past the first chapter of the Bible. And keep going back to it to disprove each other.Genisus isn't a blueprint on how God created a world. They needed to start the book so that is how they started it. It doesn't really give a moral lesson, other then saying universe is big and complicated So complicated that God needed a day off. 7 days and 7 nights bits 7 is because it is Prime

Isn't interesting how doing science requires believing in induction, that the future will be like the past. But if you don't assume that the reason why the future is like the past is due to God sustaining and creating those rules, you have laws of physics resting on nothing. There's no reason they won't change.

Or the fact that atheists trust their own rationality. I mean you have your thoughts being due to brains that weren't designed for any particular reason. Why trust your own rationality? As JBS Haldane wrote:

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

Well in so much as we can know anything about the outside world (which is an interesting, if unsolvable, question for epistemology), we can know that the world follows predictable patterns. And we can know what those patterns are.

Essentially, if we accept that the external world exists and we perceive it roughly as it "is", we can "know" things by science without relying on magical thinking.

Interestingly one of the first people to pose the problem of the external world, Descartes ("I think, therefore I am")

Isn't interesting how doing science requires believing in induction, that the future will be like the past.

Living requires the assumption that the future will be like the (apparent) past. If the future is unrelated to the past, then memory and experience and choice and action are all meaningless. For there to be such a thing as choice, one must be able to predict the effects of one's actions. The point of choosing an action is to have a certain effect on the future. If the future does not follow from the past, experience is useless, and memories may well be arbitrary—after all, they're being remembered in the future compared to the time those memories were supposedly made.

You can't choose to believe that the future does not follow from the past without contradiction. Perhaps it doesn't—but there is no point in entertaining that possibility. It can never form the basis for any action or belief.

But if you don't assume that the reason why the future is like the past is due to God sustaining and creating those rules, you have laws of physics resting on nothing. There's no reason they won't change.

And if you do assume that, then you have the laws of physics resting on an unfounded belief, and there is still no reason why they won't change. Since the result is the same, one might as well choose the principle with fewer unnecessary assumptions.

Or the fact that atheists trust their own rationality. I mean you have your thoughts being due to brains that weren't designed for any particular reason. Why trust your own rationality?

You are attempting to make a rational argument against rationality. This is a contradiction. If your argument against rationality were well-founded, it would invalidate itself.

One trusts one's own rationality—within limits—because one has no choice.